GARDINO MARTINEZ MESA,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputes regarding the amount of restitution owed by a defendant.
[2] The burden of proving the amount of loss sustained by a victim rests with the state.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Restitution Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Gardino Martinez Mesa appeals from a judgment of conviction of two
counts of animal abandonment, sentence of probation with special conditions, and order of restitution.
We affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order and remand for further proceedings.
The trial court ordered restitution over Mesa’s objection without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Before briefing in this pending appeal, Mesa’s counsel filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) challenging the trial court’s authority to:1) order restitution payable to the South Florida Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“SPCA”); and2) impose restitution over objection without a hearing. Below, the State apparently conceded that an evidentiary hearing was required prior to imposition of restitution over a defendant’s objection.1 Thereafter, the trial court orally vacated the restitution order and conducted an evidentiary hearing but failed to enter any order within sixty days of the filing of Mesa’s motion. Under rule 3.800(b)(2)(B), if the trial court does not file an order ruling on a motion to correct sentencing error within sixty days, the motion shall be deemed denied. See Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (finding trial court’s jurisdiction ends “once 60 days elapse without rendition of an order ruling on the motion”). “As such, the defendant may raise the alleged sentencing errors on direct appeal.” Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
A restitution hearing is required, as disputes as to the amount of restitution are to be resolved by the trial court by the preponderance of the evidence, and the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense is on the state attorney. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2019); Strickland v. State, 746 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[S]ection 775.089(7) contemplates an evidentiary hearing where there is a dispute as to restitution.”); Harris v. State, 816 So. 2d 245, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand this case to the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing.2 Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Chamberlain v. State, 746 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Antinori Harris v. State, 816 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)